1

The Meaning of Animal Portraiture in a Museum Setting:

Implications for Conservation

Linda Kalof

Joe Zammit-Lucia

Jennifer Rebecca Kelly

A final version of this article has been published in:

Organization & Environment, 24(2) 150-174. June 2001

Copyrighted material. May not be reproduced.

For further information please contact joezl@me.com

2

Abstract

There have been numerous studies documenting the meaning of popular culture

texts that depict animals, but no research has examined the impact of animal visual

representations on museum visitors. We document the changes in visitors’ perceptions of

animals after viewing an animal portraiture exhibit at the National Museum of Natural

History in Paris, France. Our hypothesis was that using an approach that presented the

animal in a context that is, culturally, usually associated with human representation,

viewers’ sense of kinship with and respect for animals can be enhanced. The exhibit

consisted of 29 photographic prints, the participants were 50 visitors, and the instrument

used was the Personal Meaning Map. Sixty-six percent of visitors changed, added or

deleted meaning to their perception of animals after viewing the animal portraits and a

further twenty percent reported changes to the aggregate intensity of the pre-exhibit

themes that they associated with the concept of "Animal.". Pre-exhibit, the visitors

thought about animals primarily in terms of “Nature” and “Wild/Free” creatures; whereas

post-exhibit the visitors’ meanings of “Animal” emphasized “Personality” and “Kinship.”

Our findings indicate that certain types of visual representations of animals in a museum

environment can change visitors’ perceptions of animals thus having a potential influence

on human-animal relations. We raise questions about today’s prevalent approaches to the

visual culture of animal representation in conservation and the conservation value of

exposing people to animals in a captive setting.

Keywords: animal, art, conservation, personality, portraiture, museum visitor studies

3

The Meaning of Animal Portraiture in a Museum Setting:

Implications for Conservation1

Introduction

The shaping and reshaping of the social world is accomplished in large part by

cultural representations, and one of the most popular and provocative cultural icons is the

visual depiction of other animals. Animal representations are particularly salient cultural

tracers because their presence reflects historically-specific social norms and values (Kalof

2007). But animal representations also serve to reinforce or change established cultural

norms. According to Burt (2002), animal imagery not only reflects human-animal

relationships but can also be used to bring about change in the position of animals in

human culture. He argues that “the position of the animal as a visual object is a key

component in the structuring of human responses towards animals generally, particularly

emotional responses” (Burt 2002, 11). For example, animal iconography is often used by

fundraisers, animal advocates and journalists to mobilize popular attitudes, with animal

images designed to invoke empathy, sympathy or anger for the animals depicted (Myers,

Saunders and Bexell 2009). The protection and conservation of threatened and

endangered animals has long been important to some prominent individuals and

organizations in modern Western culture. For example, in the late 1800s, Henry S. Salt

and The Humanitarian League actively rejected the dichotomization of humans and other

animals, promoted the idea of kinship of all sentient life and fought for laws to protect

wild animals (Clark and Foster 2000).

4

While there have been numerous studies documenting the meaning of animal

representations, the cultural meaning of animal portraiture and its impact on conservation

attitudes has not been examined. Our study is designed to fill that gap. We examine

changes in visitors’ perceptions of animals after viewing an exhibit of animal portrait

photography at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France.

Background

Museum representations of nature do not reflect stable truths, but rather are

historically contingent constructs that facilitate the needs of museums and their visitors

(Luke 2000, 307). Timothy Luke has written extensively on how museums shape cultural

attitudes and values (1997, 2000, 2002). He argues that the study of the representations

of nature in museums is important because museums are “mapping centers that meld

ontological meanings with cultural terrains” (Luke 2002, 100). On the other hand, Rosa

(2009) questions what he calls the liberal notion that art, by affecting social values, can

impact individual and institutional behaviors and argues that influence may, in fact, flow

primarily in the opposite direction.

However, it has been well documented that museum experiences have an impact

on visitors (Coffee 2007, Cunnell and Prentice 2000, Griggs and Alt 1982, Soren et al.

1995, Soren 2000, Falk et al. 1998, Packer 2008, Stainton 2001, Weil 2003). But there

are special research challenges in assessing the impact of museum experiences on visitors

because the effects of the experience may be subtle rather than obvious. Since the

consumption of any cultural text (such as classical art, contemporary photographs,

written narratives, or moving pictures) is a dynamic, interpretative process, cultural

5

representations must be understood as multi-layered messages that are read or consumed

in an interactionist framework (Lerner and Kalof 1999).

The subtleties of the visitor experience begin within the dialectic exchange, such

as when the goals of the artist converse with the visitor’s frame of reference. In other

words, an engaged visitor participates in a form of reciprocity with the work of art. Falk

and Dierking (2000) discuss this process as “a socially mediated form of culturally

specific conversation between the producers of that medium…and the user” (41).

According to Stainton (2001, 213), visitors are in a dialogue with a work of art, and

through this process a sense of meaning emerges that is linked to particular kinds of

artwork. Stainton emphasizes the process of meaning-making as museum visitors draw

on pre-existing knowledge and experiences to make connections with the exhibit.

The effect of a museum experience is enhanced when the visitor has a prior

interest in the exhibit on display (Griggs and Alt 1982, Cunnell and Prentice 2000, Falk

et al. 1998). Soren et al. (1995) studied three different museum venues and found that

visitors’ prior experiences coalesced with the museum experience and added to an

individual’s “memory bank” (45). Engaging the visitors’ emotions is another way

museum experiences influence visitors (Falk and Gillespie 2009), and emotions have

been found to be critical in the visitor’s ability to recall the museum experience (Cunnell

and Prentice 2000). Learning in museums is also important. Adams and O’Ryan (1999)

documented that visitors move from a general to an enriched level of understanding with

a museum experience, and Packer (2008) found that museum learning consisted of both

“gaining new knowledge, [and] reinforcing or challenging prior knowledge” (46). Over

half of the participants Packer interviewed had an introspective experience, with the

6

meaning gained from the experience used to reflect on self-meaning; the “focus [was] on

private feelings and experiences, such as imagining, reflecting, reminiscing and

connecting” (2008, 35).

Viewing Animals in Animal Attraction Settings

Unlike most museum exhibits, live animal attractions (such as zoos, aquariums,

animal theme parks and wildlife parks) expose large numbers of people to actual animals.

Zoos and aquariums have long promoted their educational and conservation missions,

and showing people live animals is an important objective. The American Zoo and

Aquarium Association considers conservation of wildlife as its highest priority; its goal is

to increase public awareness and appreciation of wildlife and to display animals in ways

that convince viewers that the animals have reasons for being and rights to exist (Hanson

2002, 178).

Zoo visitors are likely to be different from visitors to museums or from others

who have an interest in animals and nature. Adelman and colleagues (2000) found that

zoo visitors “were generally more knowledgeable about, more concerned about, and more

involved in conservation-related issues than the general public … (h)owever, they were

far from conservationists” (34). This validates earlier work that found “zoo goers much

less knowledgeable about animals than backpackers, hunters, fishermen, and others who

claim an interest in animals, and only slightly more knowledgeable than those who claim

no interest in animals at all” (Kellert, cited in Acampora 1998, 2).

Some research has found that zoos and aquariums do indeed influence visitors’

conservation attitudes and feelings of connection with animals. For example, Falk et al.

(2007) surveyed 5,500 visitors to institutions accredited through the Association of Zoos

7

and Aquariums and found that visitors believed zoos and aquariums provide an important

service in educating for conservation and the care of wild animals. Visits to zoos and

aquariums prompted visitors to reconsider their role in environmental problems and

conservation action and to see themselves as part of the solution (Falk et al. 2007).

Further, while visitors have knowledge about basic ecological concepts and zoos and

aquariums support and reinforce visitor values and attitudes, visitors arrive with specific

identity-related motivations that shape the meanings derived from the experience (Falk et

al. 2007, 3). In a survey of 209 zoo visitors and analysis of 1,900 overheard visitor

conservations, Clayton et al. (2009), concluded that visits to the zoo were positive

emotional experiences that encourage visitors to learn more about animals.

However, some scholars challenge the conclusions that zoo visits have a positive

influence on conservation action and education about animals. Marino et al. (2010)

criticized the Falk et al. (2007) study identifying “at least six major threats to

methodological validity that undermine the authors’ conclusions” (Marino et al. 2010,

126). They conclude that “to date there is no compelling or even particularly suggestive

evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, and

interest in conservation in visitors” (137). Investigating the potential impact of visitors to

the Conservation Station in Disney’s Animal Kingdom, Dierking et al. (2004, 338) found

that “in all cases the discernible changes were not as significant as had been

hypothesized.” Studies of the impact of conservation messages on visitors to the

Monterey Bay Aquarium (Yalowitz 2004) yielded a number of findings. Many of the

exhibits and accompanying narratives did result in visitors being better informed and

expressing greater interest in conservation issues. Responses to direct questioning, on the

8

other hand, showed that most visitors were more interested in the welfare of the captive

animals than they were in the conservation issues. Additionally, the impact on long-term

conservation-related behaviors seemed to be more dependent on the quality of the post-

exhibit literature rather than on the exhibit itself. Detailed evaluation of the Congo

Gorilla Forest exhibit at the Bronx Zoo (Hayward, 2004) concluded that the exhibit was

successful in conveying information about conservation issues and the work of

conservation scientists. However, asked about what they liked best about the exhibit, the

interpretative media (films, text panels and other “educational” information) included in

the exhibit came a distant third (mentioned by 35% of visitors), well below visitors’

interest in the gorillas themselves (81%) and in the whole exhibition setting (57%) –

including the fact that the animals seemed to be held in a large, naturalistic setting.

These studies suggest that the captive environment creates challenges in terms of

conveying conservation messages, either because of visitors’ primary interest in the

animals themselves rather than the attached conservation messages or because of visitors’

concerns about the welfare of the captive animals. Following on Berger’s (1980) classic

critique of zoos as animal spectacle because of the context of confinement, scholars have

established that zoo environments do indeed influence how captive animals are perceived

by visitors. Rhoads and Goldworthy (1979) documented increased visitor appreciation

for wildlife conservation when the exhibitions allow the animal to be in a more natural

setting. In a comparison of three different environments for animals (animals in

captivity, a more naturalistic setting and in the wild), Finlay et al. (1988) found that

animals in captive zoo environments were described as “restricted, tame, and passive”

while animals in the wild were “free, wild, and active” (508). It is also argued that zoos

9

might convey to visitors the impression that zoo animals are “glorified pets,” so that

while compassion might arise from visitor observations of zoo caretakers interacting with

animals, visitors might also develop an erroneous belief in the tameness of wild animals

(Kreger and Hutchins 2010, 7). Finally, Bruni et al. (2008) argue that while zoo

experiences promote “an increased implicit connectedness with nature … self-reported

explicit connectedness with nature” remained unchanged (139).

Some scholars join Berger (1980) as outspoken critics of zoos and their mission

of conservation. Kellert (1997) argues that zoo experiences convince visitors that

humans dominate the natural world, and Acampora (1998) writes that visits to the zoo

reinforce the message that animals are there to entertain humans. According to Randy

Malamud (1998), watching animals in zoo environments constitutes a spectatorship that

is “passive, minimally imaginative, cheaply vicarious … and inhibitive, rather than

generative, of the creative experience and appreciation of nature” (225-226).

In summary, animal attraction settings present animals “to be seen, heard, met,

and [in animal theme parks] usually literally touched in some way” (Desmond 1999, xv).

These arenas are important cultural sources in shaping people’s attitudes toward

conservation, animals and nature (for better or worse). Next we discuss other visual

cultural contexts where real animals are never encountered but still shape the multi-

layered meanings of animals and the natural world.

Viewing Animals in Visual Media

To understand the multiple social constructions of animal meaning, scholars have

examined animal images in a wide variety of visual cultural media, including film (Bousé

2000, Cris 2006, Hirschman and Sanders 1997), television (Church 1996, Lerner and

10

Kalof 1999, Paul 1996), magazines (Kennedy and McGarvey 2008), comic art (Carmack

1997), internet advertisements (Grauerholz 2007), political cartoons (Baker 1993/2001)

and photographs (Arluke and Bogdan 2010, Kalof and Fitzgerald 2003). These scholars

have produced a large, interdisciplinary body of knowledge on the social and cultural

messages encoded in the visual representation of animals. But there is a paucity of

literature addressing the question of how animal representation in turn affects – changes

or reinforces – cultural perceptions of animals. In this section we first discuss the broad

literature on the visual representation of animals and then we address the specific topic of

our study – animal representations in photographs.

Many scholars have studied visual media representations to identify major

thematic portrayals of human-animal relationships. For example, a study of comic strips

with human-companion animal portrayals found three major themes: affection and

companionship, obligatory/necessary aspects of interaction (such as training and

grooming), and nuisance or stressful aspects of companion animal ownership (such as

property destruction or barking) (Carmack 1997). A study of animal imagery in US

tabloid publications found nine thematic categorizes that symbolized human-animal

relations: animals as loved one, savior, threat, victim, tool, sex object or sexual

aggressor, imaginary, person and object of wonder (Herzog and Galvin 1992).

Paul’s (1996) study of British children’s television examined the different

portrayals of companion animals, farm animals and wild animals in the programs. She

found companion animals were typically portrayed as good, farm animals as neutral, wild

animals as bad (although more likely to be main characters), mammals, birds and reptiles

were portrayed as more human-like and more good than were either fish or invertebrates.

11

Another study of animal representations in prime-time television documented that

animals were portrayed much more often as villains, nuisances, and threats than were

humans (Church 1996). Hirschman and Sanders (1997) examined animal depictions in

films about companion animals. They found the films focused on the 1) identification of

some animals as human-like and others as separate from humans, 2) encouragement of

traditional gender roles, the nuclear family, having children and the values of equality

and democracy, and 3) portrayal of dogs as surrogate parents. Hirschman and Sanders

(1997) also documented that the film animal portrayals fell into three categories:

utility/farm animals (portrayed as objects not individuals), wild animals (portrayed as

friendly and helpful, dangerous and harmful, food/prey or representing nature outside

human control), and pets (portrayed as most similar to humans and given voice and

gendered status).

Lerner and Kalof (1999) examined the dominant messages about animals in a

random sample of television commercials during the late 1990s. They documented that

six primary themes captured the portrayal of animals in the advertisements: animals as

loved ones (member of a family), symbols (representation of logos or ideas), tools

(animals for human use or consumption), allegories, nuisances and animals in nature.

Many of the portrayals had multiple themes, indicating the varied, multi-layered

messages about animals in visual culture and the different value and use categories that

humans assign to them. Also, most of the animal portrayals were not given human

characteristics (such as attributes or behavior) and when they were, it was primarily when

animals were portrayed as allegories and rarely when shown as a tool for human use or

consumption. This pattern suggests that humanizing an animal used for food, labor or

12

recreation would upset our need to maintain a distance from the animals we consume.

Indeed, in a recent content analysis of Internet imagery, Grauerholz (2007) found

further evidence of the need for humans to maintain distance from food animals. She

found that animal food and drink advertisements on the Internet “camouflaged” any

resemblance to actual animals. This transformation of animals into meat is “the ultimate

disassociation: consumers not only bear no responsibility for killing animals for food,

there is little to remind them that their food or drink is linked to an animal source”

(Grauerholz 2007, 347-348). It is interesting that Paul’s (1996) study also addressed

empirically the invisibility of the suffering of most food animals. She found that when

animal suffering was portrayed in children’s televised programs, it was generally only

condemned when a mammal was suffering; otherwise the suffering went “without

comment or judgment” (Paul 1996, 176). She concluded that animal images in the

electronic media send multiple messages: some animals should be protected and

sometimes loved, particularly mammals, and that meat eating is acceptable and normal

(Paul 1996).

A number of scholars have studied the link between the visual representations of

animals and other key cultural, political and gendered narratives. For example, Baker

(1993/2001) explored how political cartoons used animals as visual stereotypes of

contemporary political parties and personalities. Magdoff and Barnett (1989) found that

advertising consumers liked ads that used animals to symbolize valued qualities, such as

loyalty and strength (those ads appealed more to men than women). Women liked ads

that showed animals in relationships and appreciating human attention, such as

affectionate pets. The affinity between women and companion animals was recently

13

confirmed in a longitudinal study of the depiction of companion animals in women’s

magazine advertising (Kennedy and McGarvey 2008). In a content analysis of four

decades of advertisements that included both people and pets, they found that the

depiction of companion animals moved from outdoor tethered protectors to indoor loved

family members.

Central to our study are those scholars who have focused on the connection

between prevailing cultural narratives and the representation of wildlife in visual media.

For example, Mitman’s (2009) study of wildlife films found that the romantic nostalgia

for a racially pure America was linked to representations of pristine wilderness and that

pictures of animal life provided reinforcement of moral values such as parental devotion

to offspring. Bousé’s (2000) research on nature films documented that animals are

usually depicted living in social groups based on the ideal of the human nuclear family

and working in idealized social communities. Chris (2006) found wildlife documentaries

were preoccupied with animal mating and kinship while also creating an image of a

peaceful, ordered and resilient natural world by depicting animals in their “natural”

environments.

In the arena of visual culture, photography has considerable significance.

Photography has completely changed the global visual environment and means of

information exchange (Gaskell 1991), and while nonstop imagery is everywhere, Sontag

(2003) argued that we remember photographs best, with the single image serving as the

basic unit for apprehending and memorizing something.

14

Viewing Animals in Photographs

In a beautifully illustrated book, Arluke and Bogdan (2010) examined the

depiction of animals in real photograph postcards from the first three decades of the 20th

century. Arguing that real photo postcards capture a unique record of the meaning of

animals during that time in the US, the authors found contradictory and inconsistent

messages about animals and the human-animal relationship in 11 thematic categories:

pets, mascots, workers, food/goods, patients/needy, vermin, game,

trophies/specimens/furs, spectacles, sports and symbols. Animals were illustrated as

“both loved and hated, wild and tame, caressed and abused, commoditized and

anthropomorphized, distanced and embraced, both builders and destroyers of

relationships” (Arluke and Bogdan 2010, 248). The authors concluded that similar

ambivalences about animals exist in contemporary human-animal relationships in the US.

Kalof and Fitzgerald (2003) examined the photographs of animals published in a

random sample of contemporary hunting magazines and found that the visual

representations of animals (traditionally embedded in taken-for-granted stories of love

and affection for nature and wildlife) were in fact pictures of animals objectified,

marginalized and elaborately reassembled to appear live after death.

Finally, Finis Dunaway’s (2008) important research examined the links between

environmental images and 20th century American cultural traditions including the frontier

myth, Puritanism, and romanticism. While Dunaway was interested primarily in the

photographers and the filmmakers who produced images of environmentalism, his work

reveals important aspects of specific animal photographs in the culture of environmental

15

reform. For example, Dunaway describes Charles Pratt’s 1964 “Black Cow” photograph

as a revolutionary image of authenticity, one that

respects the integrity and separateness of the animal, revealing its substance and materiality, offering a close study of its bone structure and facial features … The image reveals a landscape shaped by people but not ultimately created by them, a place altered by human labor but still tied to natural cycles and governed by forces beyond human control … By detaching the cow from this larger landscape, a setting that most likely contains fields and fences, the photograph encourages viewers to contemplate the cow itself and to study its details … its intense and total cowness (2008, 205).

In summary, while animal visual imagery has been the focus of a substantial body

of research, there is only one study on the impact of animal imagery on viewers (Magdoff

and Barnett 1989), three studies of animals in photography (Arluke and Bogdan 2010,

Dunaway 2008, Kalof and Fitzgerald 2003), and no research on the impact of animal

portraiture photography on museum visitors. To our knowledge there are no studies that

have collected empirical data on whether animal visual imagery has the potential to

change cultural perceptions of animals. Our study is designed to fill that gap. We ask:

what impact does a specific approach to animal portraiture mounted in a museum setting

have on visitors' perceptions of animals? To answer this question we evaluated visitor

experiences of Monde Sauvage: Regards et Emotions, an exhibit of animal portraits by

photographic artist Joe Zammit-Lucia on display during Fall 2008 and Winter 2009 at the

National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France.

The Exhibit

“Animal Portraiture” is a broad term that can cover a multitude of artistic

approaches each having potentially different effects on viewers. Our study evaluated the

specific approach taken to animal portraiture by photographic artist Joe Zammit-Lucia (to

16

view images please visit www.jzlimages.com). Zammit-Lucia explores the use of animal

portraits to examine the human ability to see animals as individuals with character and

personality rather than as generic specimens of species (see also Zammit-Lucia 2008a).

The artist employs the techniques of classical human studio portraiture and applies them

to animals. The artist’s hypothesis is that viewer perceptions of animals can be altered by

adopting a representational approach that (i) alters the context in which the animal is

presented (i.e., a studio-like setting vs. in the wild or in a captive setting), and (ii) frames

the animal representation in a way that is culturally more often associated with human

representation. The artist further hypothesizes that, using these and other artistic devices

such as direct eye contact and creating a tension between who is the observed and who is

the observer in the viewer-portrait interaction, and without resorting to anthropomorphic

representation, the viewer’s sense of kinship with and respect for animals can be

enhanced while maintaining respect for the animal for what it is (Zammit-Lucia 2008b).

Our study was intended to test these hypotheses among viewers attending the

artist’s exhibit. The exhibit consisted of 29 of the artist’s large scale (40 in x 60 in) fine

art photographic prints mounted at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris,

France. The prints were mounted in a setting with a darkened background and spot-

lighting of the individual images. Subjects for the portraits were all large mammals

except for two portraits of birds (see a sample of the images in Appendix 1).

For the viewer, the setting in this particular museum was somewhat incongruous

in that Monde Sauvage: Regards et Emotions was a fine art exhibit in a museum where

all other exhibits focused on didactic learning in a scientific framework. Our study

therefore also examined whether, using such a relatively small scale fine art exhibit, it is

17

possible to achieve emotional engagement among visitors to a museum where the

primary context is one of scientific and intellectual engagement.

Method

Instrument: Personal Meaning Map

John Falk and researchers at the Institute for Learning Innovation developed the

Personal Meaning Map (PMM), a data collection instrument valuable in evaluating

museum (or learning) experiences. The PMM is designed to measure how a specified

learning experience uniquely affects each individual’s understanding or meaning-making

process. It does not assume that all learners enter the exhibit with comparable knowledge

and experience nor does it require than an individual produce a specific right answer in

order to demonstrate learning (Xanthoudaki, et al. 2003). The PMM assessment assumes

that it is the norm, rather than the exception, that free-choice learning experiences have

an effect on the underlying structure of an individual’s understanding. However, exactly

what an individual might learn as a consequence of a specific learning experience will

vary considerably depending upon the individuals themselves and the social, cultural and

physical context of the experience (Falk and Dierking 1992).

Although a qualitative instrument, the PMM can be analyzed both qualitatively

and quantitatively. The Personal Meaning Map model evolved out the constructivist-

relativist framework of learning, where “learning is seen as a continuous, highly personal

process. Learners start from different cognitive frameworks and build on learning

experiences to create unique, highly individualised schemas” (Adams et al. 2003, 2). The

constructivist model views learning as a contextual process in which “prior knowledge,

18

experience, interests and motivations all comprise a personal context, which is imbedded

within a complex socio-cultural and physical context (Adams et al. 2003, 3).

Participants

The participants in the study were 50 visitors to the Monde Sauvage: Regards et

Emotions exhibit at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France, during Fall

2008 and Winter 2009.2 Of the 50 visitors who participated in the study, 34% were males

and 66% were females. The majority of the visitors were French (88% of the

respondents), but other nationalities were a part of the sample, including Irish, Turkish,

Greek, Lithuanian, and English.3 Over half of the visitors who participated in the study

ranged from 20-29 years old, with 22% of visitors in the 30-39 age group, 8% in the 40-

49 age group, 4% in the 50-59 age group, 6% in the 60-69 age group, and another 6%

were in their late teens. Twelve percent of the visitors were members of conservation

groups.

Procedures

A bilingual female data collector approached the potential participants prior to

their entering the exhibit. She asked, “We are conducting a research study on this exhibit,

would you like to help us by participating in the study?” No benefits were presented or

promised to the participants, and there were participants who were approached and

declined participation in the study.4 When a visitor agreed to participate, the data

collector read the consent form which explained their task in the study and provided them

with a copy of the form. Before viewing the exhibit, the participants were then given a

PMM, which consisted of one sheet of paper with the word “Animal” centered in the

middle of the paper (see Figure 1). The participants were also asked to fill in the

19

demographic questions on the back of the PMM. Visitors were asked to write on the

Animal side of the paper (in blue ink) as many words, ideas, images, phrases or thoughts

as come to mind related to animal. Participants were given as much time as they needed,

or wanted, to write down all of their words, thoughts, phrases, and ideas related to animal

on the meaning map.

A Sample completed animal meaning map

Once they indicated that they were finished and before viewing the exhibit, the

data collector encouraged the participant to explain why they wrote down what they did

20

and to expand on their thoughts or ideas. This discussion allowed individuals to

articulate and negotiate their perceptions and understandings of “Animal,” and to provide

more specific understandings from their own cognitive frames of reference. Their

expanded responses were recorded by the data collector on the same piece of paper, using

the visitors' own words and thought processes. To permit discrimination between

unprompted and prompted responses, the data collected by the data collector was

recorded in a different color than were the initial words, images and phrases recorded by

the individuals themselves.

When visitors emerged from the exhibition, the data collector returned their

meaning maps and asked them to revisit their initial meanings to the word “Animal.”

Specifically, they were asked to look over their earlier thoughts, ideas, images, and

phrases and decide if was anything they would change, delete, or add to what is on their

paper regarding the prompt “Animal.” To distinguish between their pre-experience

responses and their post-experience responses, visitors were given a pen with red ink to

make changes or adjustments in the original responses to the concept “Animal.” When

they were finished, the data collector again conducted an open-ended interview, probing

any changes or enhancements in their understanding indicated by their post-viewing

responses. These responses were written in yet a different color of ink. When

participants were finished, the data collector gathered the personal meaning maps and

confirmed that the demographic information was correctly filled out on the back of the

sheet. All 50 visitors participated in the study both pre- and post-exhibit.

21

Measures

In categorizing the visitors’ meanings of “Animal” we first developed conceptual

themes or categories based on visitors’ responses that represented the different ways

respondents gave meaning to the word “Animal. This analysis stage was devoted to

developing a set of thematic categories that was fully representative of the visitors’

meanings of “Animal,” both pre- and post-exhibit. The analysis was conducted by two of

the authors (Kelly and Kalof) who discussed potential categorizations based on the

responses and finally came to agreement on the multiple themes that emerged from the 50

personal meaning maps. One of the strengths of the personal meaning map is that

clusters and patterns in the data can be observed while preserving the participants’

original meanings. There is no imposition of researchers’ predetermined meanings onto

the meaning maps. Further, it is important to clarify that our categories were not

developed as our own original concepts, nor were they interpretative in nature, rather

they were simply convenient groupings of the actual responses from the participants. We

used broad representational concepts as themes that captured the multiple and multi-

layered descriptions of “Animal,” and six thematic categories emerged from the visitors’

own descriptors and characterizations:

• “Nature” centered animals in nature and as part of the ecosystem. Some

of the words that operationalized this category included evolution, life,

instinct, and survival.

• “Kinship” was the view that humans and other animals are connected

through kinship. This category was operationalized with words and

22

phrases such as equal being, very close to us, human, and distant parents

in a family tree.

• “Wild/Free” was the view that animals are wild and free of social

constraints. Words used included wild, independent, and free.

• “Personality” focused on specific attributes and sentiments that

respondents saw in animals, such as elegant, proud, innocent, and

beautiful.

• “Vulnerable” was used to classify the ways of thinking about animals in

need of protection and/or conservation, such as defense, disappearance,

threatened, preserved, fragile, and endangered.

• “Violence” was the interpretation of animals as dangerous, such as

ferocious, brutal, predator, and dangerous.

Next, we recruited two female graduate students specializing in the university’s

animal studies graduate curriculum to independently code the data. Each coder was

given an instruction sheet detailing the operational definitions of the six themes that

emerged from the PMMs (see above). Then they independently coded the 50 meaning

maps, placing all words, phrases and descriptors into one of the major themes, pre- and

post-exhibit. After their independent coding of the data, they came together and

discussed all disagreements. After discussion, they were able to come to agreement on

thematic placements for 100% of visitors’ responses to “Animal” for the six major

themes. A Miscellaneous category was composed of concepts that did not fit into the six

major themes.5

23

Next we determined the proportion of visitors who thought of animals in any of

the major themes. We termed this phase “Breadth” to be consistent with the PMM

literature. In other words, how many visitors mentioned any of the major themes pre-

exhibit and how did this change post-exhibit? Finally, we analyzed the “Intensity” of

response within each major theme. In other words, for those visitors who mentioned each

of the themes pre- and/or post-exhibit, what was the aggregate change in intensity,

including both depth and emotion, with which those themes were felt/described across the

whole sample pre- and post-exhibit?

Breadth was simply the presence or absence of the concept in the visitor’s

personal meaning map (i.e., visitor #1 mentioned nature, wild/free, kinship and violence

in the pre-visit map). Breadth was therefore analyzed as a binary function measuring

whether a theme was present or absent. Breadth was used as a gate: respondents could

enter the gate depending on whether they mentioned a particular theme before and/or

after viewing the exhibit.

Intensity was defined as the aggregate level of depth and emotion. Here intensity

uncovered the level of involvement of those respondents who mentioned a particular

theme. Below is a breakdown of intensity by way of its evaluative structure.

Depth revealed the detail and complexity of the meanings given the word

“Animal.” We used a four point scale for depth, where one point was given when the

visitor provided a word or phrase, but didn’t include any explanation or elaboration; two

points were given when a visitor used one word or phrase with minimal explanation or

elaboration or more than one word or phrase with no explanation; three points were given

when a visitor used one word or phrase with substantial explanation or elaboration

24

(where at least one sentence with several words was included) or more than one word

with at least one sentence of explanation or elaboration. Finally, four points were given

when a visitor used more than one word or phrase with elaborate explanation.

Emotion included magnitude and strength-of-feeling attributes. We used a three

point scale, where one point was given when there was no emotion or the statement was

simply an objective one; three points were given when there was a deep personal attitude

of caring and concern and understanding often accompanied by a sense of urgency or a

subjective statement was used. Additionally, three points were given to the emotion

dimension when a visitor used different ways to describe the category or a clear and

concise wording, demonstrating a thorough mastery of the concept; two points were

given when the statement fell between the two poles.

Results

A total of 50 museum visitors participated in the study both pre- and post-exhibit.

Eighty-six percent of visitors exiting the exhibit reported changes to their pre-exhibit

perceptions of "Animal" as a result of viewing the exhibit; 66% changed, added or

deleted specific themes; and a further 20% reported changes to the aggregate intensity of

the pre-exhibit themes that they associated with the concept of "Animal." Seven of the 50

visitors reported no changes whatsoever post-exhibit either to the specific themes or to

the depth or emotion associated with those themes. Prior to the exhibit visitors

discussed animals mostly in terms of “Nature” and “Wild/Free.” After the visit the

discussion of animals shifted in focus toward “Personality,” “Kinship” and “Vulnerable.”

Overall, the findings indicate that the exhibit helped reveal animals in a different light,

25

with visitors coming away from the exhibit with a different understanding of the concept

“Animal.”

Stage 1: Presence of Major Themes

“Nature” and “Wild/Free” were the dominant themes present pre-exhibit, having

been mentioned pre-exhibit by 68% and 50% of respondents respectively. Themes of

“Kinship,” “Personality” and “Vulnerable” were mentioned by 34%, 30% and 24% of

respondents respectively. “Violence” was present as a theme in 14% of respondents pre-

exhibit (see Table 1).

The exhibit led to changes in viewer perceptions regarding the meaning they

assigned to “Animal.” The presence of themes relating to “Kinship” increased to 52% of

visitors while themes relating to “Personality” and “Vulnerable” increased to 58% and

30%, respectively. Additionally, post-exhibit responses showed a marked decrease in the

two dominant pre-exhibit themes of “Nature” and “Wild/Free.” The presence of these

themes decreased to 36% and 28%, respectively. The “Violence” theme decreased to

only 6% of visitors from a pre-exhibit level of 14%.

These results are summarized in Table 1. It can be seen that, in spite of the

relatively low number of respondents in this study, the shifts in perceptions were so

marked as to reach statistical significance in three of the major themes: “Nature,”

“Wild/Free” and “Personality.”

26

Table 1. Effect of viewing images on personal meaning maps, n=50*

Theme % Respondents mentioning category before exhibit

% Respondents mentioning category after exhibit

Percentage point difference

Significance

Nature 68% 36% -32 <0.0001* Wild/Free 50% 28% -22 0.0034* Kinship 34% 52% +18 0.0931 Personality 30% 58% +28 0.0043* Vulnerable 24% 30% +6 0.6072 Violence 14% 6% -8 0.1250 Note: Significance of change estimated by an exact McNemar test using Stata 11. Using the Bonferroni correction for seven tests we consider significant results with p < (0.05/7) = 0.007

Stage 2. Intensity of Perceptions

While the first stage of our analysis was concerned merely with the presence or

absence of particular themes, the second stage involved an examination of the intensity

with which respondents held their views.

Intensity points were assigned in “Depth” and “Emotion” dimensions for each of

the major themes that emerged. All respondents who had referred to pre-exhibit themes

in the post-exhibit, but did not expand on those themes after viewing the animal portraits,

received only 1 point for depth and 1 point for emotion (a total of 2 points for intensity).

Theme 1: Kinship

Emotion: Two points were assigned to visitors who began to see animals and

humans as kin after the exhibit, but did not elaborate on the connection. This category

also enlisted visitors who said the photographs brought out the human aspect in each

animal, but didn’t fully acknowledge the intensity of that kinship. If they had a more

27

enhanced understanding of the human aspect they were given three points, such as one

visitor who added the word humanity because she thought that it was important to look at

the part of humanity which is in each person and each animal, in their look and their

temper.

Depth: This dimension ranged in complexity from some elaboration, such as one

visitor who said the animal photos humanized animals, this response was assigned one

point, where a visitor who received four points demonstrated a greater understanding of

animals. For example, one visitor who received four points said that they were under the

impression that animals could think like humans. This visitor went on to say that animals

were very close to humans.

Theme 2: Vulnerable

Emotion: Two points were assigned to the descriptions of animals as fragile or

vulnerable, with no elaboration. Three points were assigned to meanings that included

elaboration, such as an indication of fragility in terms of the need for animal protection,

conservation, or preservation or when deep emotional intensity was emphasized in the

response. For example, one visitor said the word “fragile because the photos make her

feel the need to protect them because they’re vulnerable and isolated,” thus revealing an

emotional concern for the care of animals in a subjective statement.

Depth: If the visitors indicated some sign of the vulnerability of animals, but

didn’t reveal any explanation they were given one point. Whereas, a visitor who

indicated that they were more concerned about the animals as a result of viewing the

photos received three points. One example of this was a visitor who said that the exhibit

28

made her realize how sad it was to know that so many species are threatened.

Theme 3: Personality

Emotion: Two points were given when a visitor described certain characteristics

of an animal. For example one visitor used the words very sad when referring to the

cheetah. If a visitor used more than one characteristic to explain the animals in the

photographs they were assigned three points. For example, one visitor referred to

strength and beauty (strength because animals have to struggle in order to survive and

beauty because all animals are beautiful). Additionally, if the visitor referred to

personality they were given three points. Finally, three points also represented deep

emotion, where the mastery of the concept category may not have been clear, but the

emotional commitment to the concept was relevant. A good example of this is a visitor

who indicated “serenity” for the word “Animal” (the exhibit gave a peaceful image of

animals; the shots make us contemplate the animals and think about them; the animal

beauty made us do some soul-searching).

Depth: One point was assigned to a response that indicated the animal had a

personality. Four points were assigned to visitor responses that provided extensive

elaboration in the post response. One response that received four points indicated: soft

because the photos made her want to touch the animals, clean because on the photos, the

animals seemed clean, she would have liked to cuddle them if she had been able to, funny

because she thought the chimpanzees were really funny, and elegant and proud as the

Iberian Lynx.

The results of the aggregate intensity analysis are shown in Table 2. It can be

seen that changes in the presence/absence of the major themes as analyzed in Stage 1

29

were mirrored in the intensity of visitors’ perceptions. Themes of “Nature,” “Wild/Free”

and “Violence” showed large decreases (69%, 63% and 69%, respectively) in aggregate

intensity across the study population. Conversely, “Kinship” and “Vulnerable” revealed

41% and 27% respective increases in aggregate intensity across the study population.

Post-exhibit, “Personality” showed the largest increase of all: an 84% change over the

pre-exhibit aggregate intensity level.

Table 2. Aggregate intensity of response on personal meaning maps (n=50)*

Aggregate intensity of response across study population

Theme Pre-Exhibit Post Exhibit % Change**

Nature 194 60 -69%

Wild/Free 131 48 -63%

Violence 39 12 -69%

Kinship 97 137 +41%

Vulnerable 62 79 +27%

Personality 81 149 +84%

*These aggregate scores reflect the sum of scores in “Depth” and “Emotion” for all respondents in whom each particular theme was present. ** % Change represents the change in score post- vs pre-exhibit expressed as a percentage of the pre-exhibit value, calculated as ((Pre score – Post score)/Pre score) x 100.

30

Discussion

As a result of visiting the Monde Sauvage: Regards et Emotions exhibit, museum

visitors gave a different meaning to the word “Animal” compared to the meanings they

expressed before entering the exhibit. The biggest single change was seen in the

significant increase in the attribution of “Personality” to animals. This finding alone

confirms that exposure to this particular artwork seems to have the effect desired by the

artist – encouraging viewers to see animals as individuals with character and personality

rather than as generic specimens of species. The emergence of “Personality” as a

dominant theme in the evaluation of the animal portraits also corroborates prior research

documenting that many people perceive themselves and nonhuman animals as

remarkably similar, in spite of the cultural narratives that exacerbate the human

perception of animals as dissimilar, exploitable others (Kalof 2003). Noting that this

perception of similarity takes place in a borderland of blurred boundaries where human

identity and the relational self are shaped in association with nonhuman others, Kalof

(2003) concluded that the recognition of both our similarities with and our differences

from other animals is an essential first step in the development of coalitions to resolve

some of our most serious social and environmental problems.

However, the impact of this artwork was seemingly much broader than the

increased attribution of Personality to the concept of “Animal.” We see a wholesale shift

from the Animal being perceived as something wild, natural and hostile – and therefore

separate from the Human – to a perception of closeness and kinship between animal and

human. Pre-exhibit, the thematic cluster of “Nature,” “Wild/Free” and “Violence”

accounted for 60% of respondents’ aggregate intensity scores. Post-exhibit, the relevance

31

to visitors of this cluster fell to 25%, with the combination of “Personality,” “Kinship”

and “Vulnerable” now accounting for a full 75% of the aggregate intensity scores. These

changes suggest that the effect of the exhibit went beyond isolated changes to perceptions

around individual themes to changes in the overall cultural perception of the Animal and

the nature of the relationship between the Human and the Animal. This lends credence to

the hypothesis that certain approaches to animal representation in a museum setting can

impact visitors’ fundamental perceptions of animals and potentially impact human-

animal relations.

How Should the Animal be Seen?

It has long been the assumption of many in the environmental movement that a

romanticized representation of nature – representations of animals in their natural habitat

doing whatever it is that animals do – and the presentation of scientific information as

part of a didactic learning process are the most important elements on which to build

coalitions focused on environmental conservation. As Baker (1993) has argued, some go

even further, making demands “for a morally or politically correct image of animals, an

image of animals as they should be seen, of animals running free in our imaginary and

mythical wild” (194).

Our findings combined with previous research serve to raise questions about these

assumptions. The first question that arises is: are approaches that culturally position

animals as wild, free and violent creatures who are part of nature more or less likely than

themes of kinship and vulnerability to encourage the development of the sort of human-

animal relationships that could resolve some of our most devastating exploitations of

other animals? It has been suggested that humans have “nested communities” of

32

relations to animals, some of which are closer to us and some further away (Callicott

1992). An ethics of care approach to this issue would suggest that it could be productive

to explore ways that encourage humans to extend their more intimate circles of care

outwards, developing greater kinship with those animals that are threatened or

endangered. “Appropriate” animal representation may be a valuable tool to achieve this

for animals with whom we cannot so easily develop a day to day relationship based on

direct contact. A similar concept arises in Warwick Fox’s Theory of General Ethics (Fox

2006) where, as part of a much broader theory of ethics, he proposes that we have “an

obligation to offer saving help only to supersignificant and significant others” (3838).

While it is unlikely that we can elevate endangered animals to the status of significant

others, cultural constructs that emphasize concepts of personality, kinship and

vulnerability are more likely to move us in that direction than the more distancing

concepts of wild, free and violent creatures who belong in a distant, non-human Nature.

Which is the Best Form of Learning?

In thinking about how to influence fundamentally the underlying structure of an

individual’s understanding and attitude, a second question arises: what are the relative

roles and degrees of effectiveness of the didactic, fact-based learning approach compared

to the free-choice learning experience stimulated by an ambiguous work of art? For

instance, some have suggested that philosophical reflection acts as a deflection that

actually distracts us from the immediacy of our encounter with animals with the effect of

distancing people from animals (Diamond 2008). Scientific or documentary explorations

are, like philosophical reflection, intellectual exercises that can lead to emotional

disengagement and potentially increase distance in human-animal relations. There may

33

be fundamental flaws in the assumption that “education” through didactic scientific

communication is either universally effective or the best way of persuading lay people of

the merits of conservation efforts. For instance among visitors exiting a recent, highly

sophisticated exhibit about climate change at the Science Museum in London, England, a

majority of 2:1 stated that, having visited the exhibit, they did not believe that human-

driven climate change was a significant issue to be dealt with (Jones 2009).

How deeply embedded is the belief in the primacy of didactic communication is

reflected, for example, in the comprehensive and detailed evaluation undertaken by the

Wildlife Conservation Society of its highly successful “Congo Gorilla Forest”

Conservation Exhibition (Hayward and Rothenberg 2004). The authors open with this

statement: “Most zoo visitors are primarily motivated by the joys of watching animals,

which may preclude attention to major ecological issues that are the focus of research in

biodiversity, habitats, and other matters pertaining to the survival of wild animals” (261).

Here, rather than visitors’ own natural motivations being seen as opportunities to enhance

the human-animal relationship, they are seen as obstacles potentially getting in the way of

“introducing basic concepts of environmental science and conservation biology”

(Hayward and Rothenberg 2004, 266) – in other words the scientists’ own desire to

produce scientifically educated people.

Because of their expressive qualities, works of art affect viewer perceptions in a

different way compared to knowledge-based or documentary communication. Especially

when ambiguous or counter-cultural, a work of art operates to engage viewers at the

immediate, emotional and subconscious level. There is no attempt to force on the viewer

a specific viewpoint. Rather, the viewer is launched on his or her own individual thought

34

processes, part intellectual, part emotional, and reaches personal conclusions in a “free-

learning” environment. The exhibit that we evaluated was totally “fact-free.” It consisted

of a series of images with no advocacy or other factual information promoting the

animals or their conservation. Yet the impact on visitors’ expressed views was

substantial.

Currently, the use of fact-based, scientific information remains the dominant form

of communication within the conservation community. Indeed, among some, there is

deep suspicion about any alternative approach. Yet, “(t)he poetic as distinct from the

prosaic, esthetic art as distinct from scientific, expression as distinct from statement, does

something different from leading to an experience … It constitutes one.” (Dewey 2005,

88). This statement points to a complementarity of art and science that, combined, may

provide a more effective route to influencing the cultural environment in which decisions

on human-animal relationships and their conservation implications are made. This

approach requires a recognition that, apart from attempting to produce scientifically

informed citizens, effective communication efforts “must also address motivation to act,

which is closely related to feeling and emotion” (Myers 2009, 39).

Finally, we would like to discuss the widespread perception that providing people

with the opportunity to view live, captive animals (i.e., in zoos or nature parks) is an

important element in the overall “education” efforts designed to influence conservation

endeavors. The impact of most zoos’ effectiveness in creating a positive conservation

culture continues to be a matter of debate. Some consider zoos “embassies in which

ambassadors of other species reside” (Rabb 2004, 243). They see zoos progressively

evolving into conservation centers and places where the opportunity for aesthetic

35

appreciation of individual animals helps conservation efforts by leading to a wider

appreciation of the entire species (Kagan and Veasey 2010). Others see talk of

conservation as a mere fig leaf and argue that zoo visits are more about family

entertainment than environmental education (Hyson 2004). Here our interest lies not in

zoos’ potential in traditional, didactic educational efforts but rather in their potential

impact on the human-animal relationship. In addition, we are interested in the potential

impact of the zoo exhibit itself rather than the many research and field conservation

projects that zoos and zoological societies now support but that have little or nothing to

do with the animal as public exhibit.

In this regard, our study may provide an alternative framework for thinking about

ways to connect people to animals in need of protection. It serves to raise two important

questions for discussion. First, our study has shown that the device of placing animal

representations in a visual context that is usually associated with human representation

had the effect of enhancing feelings of kinship. What, therefore, are the effects of

continually exposing people to animals in a captive setting? As suggested by Berger,

Kellert, Acampora and Malamud, does viewing animals in zoos only reinforce and

enhance feelings of human dominance over other living beings? Rather than enhance

feelings of kinship, is captive subjugation merely “… a demonstration of the dualism at

the very origin of the relation between man and animal” (Berger 1980, 28), one that

increases the perceived distance between the human and the animal and continues to

legitimize the exploitation of the animal for the purposes of mere entertainment? Or do

zoo encounters generate positive or negative emotional experiences that merely reinforce

36

preconceived cultural perceptions of the particular type of animal involved (Myers,

2004)?

Second, if appropriate visual representation has the potential of effectively

enhancing feelings of kinship and attitudes towards conservation, what opportunities

might this present to decrease the number of animals in captive settings and replace – at

least in part – viewers’ experiences with appropriate visual imagery? Pekarik (2004)

argues that an important and often neglected element of the zoo experience is the ability

to reflect on what it means to be alive and to be human and to realize that “(a)nimals are

simultaneously ‘like us’ and ‘not like us’ ” (257). He stresses that this questioning takes

place through metaphor. If this is so, could combinations of live animal experiences and

more metaphorical art-based experiences serve to enhance such questioning?

What We Have Learned and What Remains

Our study was intended to address one narrow question – does one specific form

of animal representation have the potential to change viewers’ perception of animals and

the human-animal relationship and to influence positively people’s attitudes towards

conservation? While providing a positive response to this question, the natural limitations

of any single study raise further questions that could benefit from more research. What

would need to be done for the changed perceptions we have documented to be sustained

over long periods and lead to changed behaviors among viewers? Would the impact be

different if these images were to be presented in settings other than a Natural History

Museum – a setting where other exhibits may also have influenced respondents’

perceptions? Are these findings reproducible in other cultural contexts – for instance in

other countries or among individuals who were not self-selected as those who chose to

37

visit a Natural History Museum? All these questions could provide productive avenues

for further work.

What our study does clearly show is that, in the right form, animal representation

can have a substantial influence on viewers’ cultural attitudes and feelings about animals.

In modern urban culture, animal representation and live animal attraction settings are the

only significant forms of contact that exists between the majority of humans and other

animals, with the exception of companion animals. Animal representations are therefore

central to the future development of human-animal relationships. The form of these

representations will determine the direction in which the human-animal relationship will

develop – for better or for worse. Yet, in the absence of empirical information about the

impact of different forms of representations, we are left with Baker’s (2001) contention

that any discourse about the animal “as it should be seen” becomes nothing more than a

matter of personal preference.

Rather than focusing on a preferred form of animal representation, it may be more

productive first of all to understand how different forms of representation may affect

meaning. In this, we should consider the important point that viewers first of all process

images in terms of their global, meaning-laden qualities rather than their content details

(Myers, 2006). This distinction between meaning and content is analogous to what some

art philosophers have described as matter versus form, arguing for a unity of matter and

form in works of art. In providing a very specific combination of matter and form, the

images we have studied here seem to have generated a meaning that goes far beyond the

literal, and to have done so without the need for additional narrative support.

38

Alternative approaches to animal representation – such as traditional wildlife and

nature photography or wildlife documentaries – may have effects on viewers opposite of

those we have found here. For instance, traditional wildlife photography that places

animals in a naturalistic setting, may enhance themes of nature, wild and free potentially

to the detriment of feelings of kinship and vulnerability. Kill scenes, which have

seemingly become an obligatory component of traditional wildlife documentaries, may

enhance a concept of the animal as a violent, ferocious and brutal predator, further

undermining concepts of kinship and vulnerability. These approaches may be more in

tune with a view of conservation that sees Culture and the Human as somewhat separate

from, and a destructive intruder upon, a Nature that must be protected, rather than a belief

in the primary importance of positive human-nature relationships as the vital

underpinnings of successful conservation efforts.

Any form of animal representation is a cultural artifact. One group or another

may prefer one form of representation over another. But every preferred form “of seeing

and understanding is itself cultural and in a sense no more a true picture of the animal

than any other” (Mullan and Marvin 1987, 6-8). For these reasons, our study is not

concerned with trying to establish a preferred form of representation. Rather, our interest

is in providing evidence of whether one specific form of representation changes viewers’

understanding of the concept of “Animal” and whether the changes achieved are likely to

help or hinder conservation efforts. It is possible, indeed likely, that untested but

established assumptions about the desirability and acceptability of different forms of

animal representation may have unwittingly created a visual culture that might serve to

distance us further from non-domesticated, threatened and endangered animals. More

39

empirical information about the ways different forms of animal representation impact

cultural meaning and human behaviors may give us the better understanding needed for

the future development of effective approaches towards improved human-animal

relations.

The particular animal portraits we have examined intensely emphasize the

animality and individuality of the represented subjects and artificially place those

subjects in a setting culturally associated with human representation. This seems to create

among viewers a type of engagement and change in perceptions – a meaning – that may

not happen when animals are presented in other, more prosaic, naturalistic or scientific

settings. As has been postulated in the context of similar juxtapositions in the zoo

setting, “Removed from the intensity imposed by the ... artificial exaggeration of

similarity and difference, only the poets are likely to find the sight of an animal

penetrating, and to appreciate the opportunity that animals provide us to realize what life

is” (Pekarik 2004, 259).

1We would like to thank Clare Palmer, Emily Brady and Warwick Fox for guidance on the philosophy and ethics issues; Seven Bryant and Molly Tamulevich for coding the data; and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions for improvement. 2 The research design was reviewed by the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for evaluation prior to distribution. The informed consent guidelines for the IRB were followed for the appropriate ethical considerations of social research. 3 44 visitors were French, 2 Irish, 1 Turkish, 1 Greek, 1 Lithuanian, and 1 English. 4 Unfortunately, we do not know how many visitors approached refused to participate. 5 Nine respondents mentioned one or more miscellaneous concepts pre-exhibit (none of the nine changed or deleted these concepts post-exhibit, although five of them added concepts that fit into one of the major themes). The Miscellaneous concepts were glitter, cat, art, perfect, soul, mystery, hope, fascination, passion, joy, caught, hairy and curiosity (because humans are curious to know animals).

40

References

Acampora, Ralph R. 1998. Extinction by Exhibition: Looking at and in the Zoo.

Human Ecology Review. 5(1), 1-4.

Adams, M., Falk, J.H. and Dierking, L.D. 2003. Things Change: Museums,

Learning, and Research. In M. Xanthoudaki, L. Tickle and V. Sekules, (eds.),

Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader,

15-32. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Adams, Marianna and Brigitte O’Ryan. 1999. From Airmail to Airlines Discovery

Carts National Air and Space Museum. Institute for Learning Innovation. Annapolis,

MD.

Adelman, L.M., Falk, J.H. and S. James. 2000 Impact of National Aquarium in

Baltimore on Visitor’s Conservation Attitudes, Behavior, and Knowledge. Curator.

43(1), 33-61.

Arluke, Arnold and Robert Bogdan. 2010. Beauty and the Beast: Human-

Animal Relations as Revealed in Real Photo Postcards, 1905-1935. Syracuse: Syracuse

University Press.

Arluke, Arnold and Clinton R. Sanders. 1996. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Baker, Steve. 1993/2001. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity and

Representation. Manchester University Press/University of Illinois Press.

Berger, John. 1980. About Looking. New York: Pantheon Books.

41

Breslow, N E and N E Day. 1980. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research.

Volume 1: The Analysis of Case-control Studies, 164-165. Lyon: International Agency

for Research on Cancer.

Bruni, Coral M., John Fraser and P. Wesley Schultz. 2008. The Value of Zoo

Experiences for Connecting People with Nature. Visitor Studies. 11(2), 139-150.

Bousé, Derek. 2000. Wildlife Films. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

Burt, Jonathan. 2002. Animals in Film. London: Reaktion Books.

Callicott, J Baird. 1992. Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back

Together Again. In Eugene C. Hargrove, ed., The Animal Rights/Environmental Ethics

Debate: The Environmental Perspective, 249-261. Albany: SUNY Press.

Carmack, Betty J. 1997. Realistic Representations of Companion Animals in

Comic Art in the USA. Anthrozoos 10(2/3), 108-120.

Church, Jill Howard. 1996. How the Media Portray Animals. Animals’ Agenda

16(1), 24-28.

Clark, Brett and John Bellamy Foster. 2000. Henry S. Salt, Socialist Animal

Rights Activist: An Introduction to Salt’s A Lover of Animals. Organization &

Environment 13(4), 468-473.

Clayton, Susan, John Fraser, and Carol D. Saunders. 2009. Zoo Experiences:

Conservation, Connections, and Concern for Animals. Zoo Biology. 28(5), 377-397.

Coffee, Kevin. 2007. Audience Research and the Museum Experience as Social

Practice. Museum Management and Curatorship 22(4), 377-389.

42

Chris, Cynthia. 2006. Watching Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

Cunnell, Deborah and Richard Prentice. 2000. Tourists’ Recollections of Quality

in Museums: A Servicescape Without People? Museum Management and Curatorship

18(4), 369-390.

Desmond, Jane. 1999. Staging Tourism: Bodies on Display from Waikiki to Sea

World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diamond, Cora. 2008. The Difficulty of Reality and the Difficulty of

Philosophy. In S. Cavell, C. Diamond, J. McDowell, I. Hacking and C. Wolfe,

Philosophy and Animal Life, 43-90. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dierking, Lynn., Leslie M. Adelman, Jackie Ogden, Kathy Lehnhardt, Lance

Miller and Jill D. Mellen. 2004. Using a Behavior Change Model to Document the

Impact of visits to Disney’s Animal Kingdom: A Study Investigating Intended

Conservation Action. Curator 47(3), 322-43.

Dewey, John. 2005. Art as Experience. Perigee.

Dunaway, Finis. 2005/2008. Natural Visions: The Power of Images in American

Environmental Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Falk, John H. and Lynn Dierking. 1992. The Museum Experience. Washington,

DC: Whalesback.

Falk, John H. and Lynn D. Dierking. 2000. Learning From Museums: Visitor

Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Falk, John H. and Katie L. Gillespie. 2009. Investigating the Role of Emotion in

Science Center Visitor Learning. Visitor Studies 12(2), 112-132.

43

Falk, John H., T. Moussouri and D. Coulson. 1998. The Effect of Visitors’

Agendas on Museum Learning. Curator 41(2), 107-120.

Falk, J.H., E.M. Reinhard, C.L. Vernon, K. Bronnenkant, N.L. Deans, J.E.

Heimlich. 2007. Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit.

Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD.

Finlay, Ted, Lawrence R. James and Terry L. Maple. 1988. People's Perceptions

of Animals: The Influence of Zoo Environment. Environment and Behavior 20(4), 508-

528.

Fox, Warwick. 2006. A Theory of General Ethics: Human Relationships, Nature

and the Built Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kindle

Edition.

Gaskell, Ivan. 1991. “History of Images,” in Peter Burke (ed.), New Perspectives

on Historical Writing, 168-192. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Griggs, S. and M. Alt. 1982. Visitors to the British Museum (Natural History) in

1980 and 1981. Museums Journal 82(3), 149-155.

Hanson, Elizabeth. 2002. Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American

Zoos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World

of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.

Hayward, Jeff and Marilyn Rothenberg. (2004). Measuring Success in the "Congo

Gorilla Forest" Conservation Exhibition. Curator 47(3), 261-282.

Herzog, Harold A., Jr. and Shelley L. Galvin. 1992. Animals, Archetypes, and

Popular Culture: Tales from the Tabloid Press. Anthrozoos 5(2), 77-92.

44

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. and Clinton R. Sanders. 1997. Motion Pictures as

Metaphoric Consumption: How Animal Narratives Teach Us to be Human. Semiotica

115(1/2), 53-79.

Hyson, Jeffrey. (2004). Education, Entertainment, and Institutional Identity at the

Zoo. Curator 47(3), 247-251.

Jones, Jonathan. 2009. Science Museum: Close Your Climate Change Show.

Jonathan Jones on Art Blog. Guardian.co.uk. 18 November 2009.

Kagan, Ron and Jake Veasey. 2010. Challenges of Zoo Animal Welfare. In

Devra G. Kleiman, Katerina V. Thompson and Charlotte Kirk Baer (eds.), Wild

Mammals in Captivity: Principles & Techniques for Zoo Management, Second Edition,

11-21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kalof, Linda. 2007. Looking at Animals in Human History. London: Reaktion.

Kalof, Linda and Amy Fitzgerald. 2003. Reading the Trophy: Exploring the

Display of Dead Animals in Hunting Magazines. Visual Studies 18(2), 112-122.

Kalof, Linda. 2003. The Human Self and the Animal Other. In Susan Clayton

and Susan Opotow (eds.), Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological

Significance of Nature, 161-178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kellert, Stephen R. 1997. Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and

Development. Washington DC: A Shearwater Book published by Island Press.

Kennedy, Patricia F. and Mary G. McGarvey. 2008. Animal-Companion

Depictions in Women’s Magazine Advertising. Journal of Business Research 61(5),

424-430.

45

Kreger, Michael D. and Michael Hutchins. 2010. Ethics of Keeping Mammals in

Zoos and Aquariums. In Devra G. Kleiman, Katerina V. Thompson and Charlotte Kirk

Baer (eds.), Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo

Management, 3-10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lerner, Jennifer and Linda Kalof. 1999. The Animal Text: Message and Meaning

in Television Advertisements. The Sociological Quarterly 40(4), 565-86.

Luke, Timothy W. 1997. The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum: Imagineering

Southwestern Environments as Hyperreality. Organization & Environment 10(2), 148-

163.

Luke, Timothy W. 2000. The Missouri Botanical Garden: Reworking Biopower

as Florapower. Organization & Environment 13(3), 305-321.

Luke, Timothy W. 2002. Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Magdoff, JoAnn and Steve Barnett. 1989. Self-imaging and Animals in TV Ads.

In R.J. Hoage (ed.), Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, 93-100. Washington,

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Marino, Lori, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Randy Malamud, Nathan Nobis and Ron Broglio.

2010. Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical

Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study. Society and Animals 18, 126-138.

Malamud, Randy. 1998. Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity.

New York: New York University Press.

Mitman, Gregg. 1991. Reel Nature: America’s Romance with Wildlife on Film.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

46

Mullan Bob and Garry Marvin. 1987. Zoo Culture. London: Weidenfeld &

Nicholson.

Myers, Olin E., Jr., Carol D. Saunders and Sarah M. Bexell. 2000. Fostering

Empathy with Wildlife: Factors Affecting Free-Choice Learning for Conservation

Concern and Behavior. In John H. Falk, Joe E. Heimlich and Susan Foutz (eds.), Free-

Choice Learning and the Environment, 39-56. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Packer, Jan. 2008. Beyond Learning: Exploring Visitors’ Perceptions of the Value

and Benefits of Museum Experiences. Curator 51(1), 33-54.

Paul, Elizabeth S. 1996. The Representation of Animals on Children’s Television.

Anthrozoos 9(4), 169-181.

Pekarik, Andrew J. 2004. Eye-To-Eye with Animals and Ourselves. Curator:

The Museum Journal 47(3), 257-259.

Rabb, George B. 2004. The Evolution of Zoos From Menageries to Centers of

Conservation and Caring. Curator 47(3), 237-246.

Rhoads, D.L. and R.J. Goldsworthy. 1979. The Effects of Zoo Environments on

Public Attitudes Toward Endangered Wildlife. International Journal of Environmental

Studies 13, 283-287.

Rosa, Eugene A. 2009. Review of Chris Jordan’s Photographic and Computer

Image Exhibition, Running the Numbers, Curated by Chris Bruce, Director of the

Washington State University Museum of Art. Organization & Environment 22(3) 327-

337.

Sontag, Susan. 2003. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Picador.

47

Soren, Barbara, Gail Lord, John Nicks and Hugh Spencer. 1995. Triangulation

Strategies and Images of Museums as Sites for Lifelong Learning. Museum Management

and Curatorship 14(1), 31-46.

Soren, Barbara J. 2000. Audience Research Informs Strategic Planning in Two

Art Museums. Curator 43(4), 324-42.

Stainton, Catherine. 2001. Voices and Images: Making Connections Between

Identity and Art. In Sam Nguyen, Karen Knutson, and Kevin Crowley (eds.), Learning

Conversations in Museums, 213-257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Weil, Stephen E. 2003. Beyond Big and Awesome: Outcome-Based Evaluation.

Museum News 6(3), 40-53.

Xanthoudaki, Maria, Les Tickle and Veronica Sekules. 2003. Researching

Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries: An International Reader. Dordrecht:

The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Yalowitz, Steven S. 2004. Evaluating Visitor Conservation Research at the

Monterey Bay Aquarium. Curator 47(3), 283-298.

Zammit-Lucia, Joe. 2008a. First Steps: Conserving Our Environment. Matte

Press.

Zammit-Lucia, Joe. 2008b. I AM - Musings on Animal Portraiture and Its Role

as a Conservation Tool. Unpublished. www.jzlimages.com.